When people speak in extremes, it almost offers a sense of comfort. It is easy to be told that something is right or something is wrong. It's easy to process this mentally, it's easy to accept this and to project this. Right or wrong. Black or White. Two options, as simple as flipping a coin.

In the world of youth development, the battle for ideological supremacy reigns supreme in which both extremes argue back and forth, and yet we fail to see that nuance is dying a slow, and unfortunately painful, death. Nuance may be the most important word for the 21st century, especially in a time where social media is becoming rampant in its destruction of contextual discussions, replacing it with 140 characters of smug confidence in being absolutely right. We are in an age where a long-form discussion on a topic is boring, because who wants to read that article when that celebrity I follow on twitter can just call it "Stupid" and save me the read.

Recently, I have seen a debate about the battle between opposed technical development versus unopposed technical development, and it's one in which the soccer world has decided to forget the grey, and focus on the black and white. Remember that in almost all things, the truth is somewhere in the middle, and those that speak in absolutes present a great red flag for you to spot and run away from. The irony in this, of course, is that I've just presented an absolute in saying that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Never say never, eh?

Proponents of only opposed technical development argue that unopposed practice doesn't present any similarities to the game, and therefore there is no skill acquisition that can transfer to a game. It's "useless" or "ineffective" or even, if you're feeling daring, "a disservice to your players."

Why?

This is normally the part where I add pictures, something to add some light and separate the paragraphs to help the readers. However, I've spent some time thinking about the times we live in, and decided that I'm going to talk in long-form and accept that this won't be for everyone.

We have to consider several factors when it comes to unopposed vs opposed technical development. First, the argument can and should be made that given some context, team environments should present players with scenarios most closely related to the games. Especially when training time may be limited, it's important to create cues for our players in which the game is represented. Team sessions, in my opinion, should focus the majority (a word I have chosen subjectively given my own context) of training on opposed scenarios. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, why do we deride those who want to work individually on unopposed technical work?

There is an idea amongst certain clubs and educators in which we want to create automatism. I say "automation" rather than "automatism", and the idea is simple. Can we train a player in which certain habits become instinctual. The goal is to put players through repetitive actions and motions at which point their muscle memory takes over and certain technical actions are able to take place without any additional thought. If you constantly practice with a ball and a wall and practice receiving the ball with different parts of the body, eventually you are going to become unconsciously competent at this action. When you've picked up the cues upon which you know how and where to receive the ball, this allows you more time to process your immediate area as well as decide upon your next action in advance. Can we create automation through unopposed technical development? My thought is yes, we can.

Here is the important next step, though. Anyone can train to receive a ball off their chest automatically. The same goes for doing a cruyff turn, or playing a sixty-yard pass. The next stage in the development process is applying that in a game-situation and turning technique into skill. That is to say, the functional technique is now applied at the proper time and place in the game scenario.

So, the question we have to ask ourselves is can creating technical automation assist when we then enter a team environment in which we now have to develop and work with cognitive technical development? If you are "technically: competent at an action, will that aid in your cognitive development when the team environment is turning that technique into skill? Again, my thought is yes.

People may deride this and say this is anecdotal, in which case it certainly is. I am speaking from my experience, as well as my experience in observing and learning from other coaches and clubs. There is an idea out there in which research is the be all end all, and anecdotes are to be ridiculed. Research is an integral part in any walk of life, and as the game develops, we want to be sure that we are constantly putting our methods to rigorous scrutiny under scientific methods. The problem however is that we forget that not all research is created equal, and there is power in experiential learning.

It may be very easy to produce a research paper on best teaching methods for 5th grade mathematics, however if you speak to teachers in Philadelphia, or the Bronx, or Glasgow, or Los Angeles, they may all have different takes that adapt or tweak from the "proven" research. It is necessary to remember that the player is the syllabus, and the demands needed for one player may be different for another. We very quickly fall into the trap of reading what one theory and data set presents, or what one club presents, and assumes that is the gospel. Again, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Can we find effective ways in which we can help develop our players, understanding that while certain activities may be more effective than others, they are not mutually exclusive.

This leads into the last point. There is the idea in which if opposed technical development is proven to be more effective than unopposed, then what's the point in wasting time on the less effective option. This is where the holistic approach to development comes in, realizing that prioritization does not mean removal of all other parts. You can prioritize when and where you can institute your activities that bring about opposed skill development, but also accept that players can find time on their own to bring about unopposed individual development. You'd be foolish to lambast your player for playing with a ball and a wall in their backyard, yelling at them for not making things more realistic. At the same time, you can structure your team environment to one in which you prioritize what is most effective for your team and players.

This is about 10% of what's in my head currently. It's long. It's not a quick read, and it certainly isn't 140 characters with some emojis thrown in. Trust me, it's easy to write in absolutes and say that one method is right and one method is wrong. It's simple, it's quick, and unfortunately its very effective. If you want to develop yourself as a person, and a coach, however, you will need to delve into the grey area and bring out some nuance to the discussion.

Do yourself and your players a service, and bring nuance back from the dead.

Paul, I agree and it's exhausting to read and hear these closed minded arguments folks make on this issue. Nuance. I like to say "thinking deeply". Which is way to consider problems, issues or whatever you are interested in understanding at more than the superficial level you described as the 140 character expert opinion. Thinking deeply requires you to carefully examine an opinion you may or importantly may not agree with. I find it ironic when some will cite a study which found that unopposed technical work (aka work in isolation) does not transfer to a game situation as well as opposed practices. This study itself is in isolation as it does not consider other potential benefits of isolated technical work. For example, an athlete gaining an understanding of how their unique bio mechanical system works at a very detailed and focused level. Another example would be the benefit of the sheer number of repetitions and feedback along with the opportunities to experiment on countless variations of a particular technique that would take years to experience in opposed practices.

I'm wearing my grey suit on this one.....

Reply

Sean D'Arcy

1/20/2017 12:30:16 am

I am a Coach who sits more at the Opposed Technical Practice end of the spectrum and I am also cautious when people talk in extremes.
My reading of the research has been quite extensive and my understanding is that transfer of Opposed Technical Practice to the game is more efficient. I have not read research where the person who wrote the research has said Unopposed Technical Practice is worthless simply less efficient in its transfer to the game. However I have read articles from people interpreting the research phrase it differently and in ways that make it appear that way.
Generally speaking so this reply doesn't go on forever I feel that children currently don't get to play enough football so they don't get enough practice at making game related decisions.
I work as a Technical Director at a club and the primary cause of frustration for the Coaches is player decisions e.g why did he shoot from there, why did she take another player on not pass, why did they did they dive into that tackle etc
Therefore if I can work their technical level and at the same time give them practice at game related decisions then for me I am making good use of the training time.
I see value in players working alone with the ball but if there are enough players to create a game or opposition then I think it is more efficient to give them practice at making game related decisions at the same time.

There is obvious room for both in my opinion. Opposed technical practice can be fruitful for players as it relates to big game better. However, I would argue that unopposed technical training can be just as fruitful if the coach knows what he wants out of it. An unopposed technical training can be realistic if the coach demands that "realness from his players" and sets it up to be that way. Let's be honest it is dumb to pass in circle, but if this passing exercise now becomes patterns of play to goal or developing attacking movement relationships b/t 6, 8, & 10 in midfield- then maybe the unopposed training isn't so bad. I have used both to enhance the experience of the players, but can say I prefer the opposed technical just to get the competitive juices flowing and the minds set for training.

This is a very well written post, my compliments. I’m glad to find your post. Keep sharing this type of stuff.
<a href="https://www.goassignmenthelp.com.au/buy-assignment-online/">Buy Assignment Online Australia</a>